A hopefully reasonable, literate and charitable place for Catholic musicians and others involved in the Church's liturgical practices to exchange and share personal perspectives of liturgical philosophy, law, and performance. And the occasional left turn might pop up in the headlights.

Friday, April 18, 2008

The following is a compilation of three responses I made in other blog comboxes regarding the Papal Mass at Nationals' Stadium in D.C.

Katherine, a very well known poster from various lists offered the following in the RPInet Listserve:

"Just back from the Mass. I was spiritually rewarded by every minute of it."

To which I felt compelled to respond:

Katherine, mon ami, I know you choose your words very carefully, which I truly respect. There is no reason to doubt or call to question what you said above.This being a thread concerned with liturgical music in general, and the music at service of this specific Mass, I have no reason, from your words, to believe you endorse the "spectacle" and cavalcading potpourri of "showpieces" that, IMO, was a gilded cage that kept the flight of grace and the Holy Spirit captive to egoism on the part of many.What saddens me most is that at Vespers the Holy Father was integral as both a figurehead, and more importantly as a humble worshipper sharing in the heavenly dialogue. But at this "event" at the stadium, he was as celebrant, mostly a spectator. Concessions, whether sublime and unspoken, or deftly articulated between the archdiocese and young Marini, were made. The Holy Father conceded to spoken orations despite his known proclivities and love of sung prayer. The Lessons and Gospel's proclamations were slathered in bravado and hubris, not humility.I've, myself, strayed from the music, but when you conclude the psalm with a cadence that is only more ambiguous than Sondheim because it lacks Sondheim's expertise and surety, and whose text calls clearly, obviously for consonance, not an Ives'ian "Unanswered Question," then the rest of the lineup is pretty much doomed. Communion was anything but. Some elsewhere have almost applauded Haugen's MoC acclamations simply by contrast to the Lead Zepplins of the litany of "aren't we so PC and cool" Communion pieces. I don't buy that either, as the lag time between invocations by Benedict to the fanfare of brass introductions works against whatever austere simplicity MoC intrinsically has.AMERICAN IDOL as it has evolved, has more integrity than the truly baroque monstrosity that this Mass's musical repertoire contained.But what do I know? I'm just a working stiff in a rural outpost on the Left Coast.I do know that I wish the crypt of the Basilica could've held thousands of regular faithful beyond the American princes, so that they could have sung and heard that music which is undeniably Roman Catholic.With respect,Charles

Among the hundreds of combox critiques and observations at the New Liturgical Movement, Jeffrey Tucker's first post regarding the musical performances unleashed a veritable Pandora's Box of charges and counter-charges that all but declared this event the last trumpet blast before a liturgical Armageddon. Among the mix of venom, bile, reason and reaction, one post by the ever-practical Richard Rice (if my instincts are correct as to his identity) struck me as particularly cogent. I augmented his post as follows:

Richard R (Rice?) hit the nailhead squarely. Our sewing circle here can banter 'til hell freezes over about how every macro and microcosmic aspect of the DC "spectacle" edifies their own philosophical perspective on what constitutes proper, much less licit liturgy. So what?The seemingly purposeful detachment of our bishops (hence to their priests) from serious engagement collegially as how to address equally serious issues of worship practice in their local sees is the real disaster.Yesterday's stadium Mass was certainly a "Hindenburg." But what political entity's hubris mandated the engineering of such an innovative and symbolic spectacle?Lotsa hubris yesterday evident throughout. Hubris is not in any way, shape or form to be found integrally in music. It can be found in both composer and performer, and then made manifest in their music. Sure. What was evidently missing yesterday was true humility from whomever served as architects of that brokedown, baroque, monstrous musical palace. And that lack of humility was heartbreaking, because as Richard R aptly states, it diminishes authentic worship to the status of mere ceremony. And many of us live that heartbreak daily as we try ever so often, with ingenuity, charity and deference, to engage our parish pastors to enter into dialogues concerning the "hows" of our worship. Only to find more indifference and disengagement.

In Jeffrey Tucker's second commentary post on the music for this event, he was describing his perception of the different economies at play that likely spawned the harbinger of doom for post-conciliar, American worship music standards. But he couldn't resist this little barb, which is found ever so often on the largely traditional boards spoken by many who still are regaled in the luxuries of youth and distance from the evil, egocentric, perpetual adolescent "baby boomers."-

"It must be said: they're old and unteachable."

Poor boy, he couldn't see that it wasn't a fastball down the middle, but a slider, and swung away anyway....

Jeffrey, with all respect, why do you believe it necessary to use stereotypes to fortify a contention of yours? Yes, there is a problem of attitude and education. And I agree (see my post in your earlier thread) that humility among our ranks, both as musical leadership and certainly as Catholics, must remain evident in our ongoing duties. And I agree that a majority of designated leaders of music in parishes and perhaps even cathedrals aren't interested in these truly progressive ideals being realized. But it ought NOT be said that such are "old and unteachable."I'm not taking personal umbrage at that. It simply isn't the whole truth.If you want to offer a general characterization of the modern, Catholic music director (which won't be much different than those in earlier eras I suspect) you can cite the somewhat trained (degreed) musician who trots from parish to parish every few years, demonstrates little interest in either the musical or spiritual formation and improvement of his/her volunteer personnel, who resigns themselves to whatever repertoire a predecessor or hymn product was in place as they arrived, who has little interest in engaging their pastor/employer with issues that are "difficult" so as not to be a provocateur, and so forth.I'm really sickened by a sort of common notion that this whole melange of a mess often gets laid at the feet of so-called "aging hippies."When in doubt, just refer to Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

After viewing the balance of liturgies during the Holy Father's visit, I'll take some time before posting again on this subject. In the meanwhile, I'm mindful of something Todd Flowerday posted prior to the visit that basically suggested we all cool our jets (like that was gonna happen) and don't get all exorcized by the hoopla attendant to these mega shows, and make sure we tend our own gardens in the meanwhile.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Sweet singing of the priests...

This is a response I'm cross-posting from a conversation with Gavin over at Catholic Sensibility.

I’ve never researched this, but always pondered the need to canonically prohibit the Eucharistic Prayer from being accompanied. The prevailing documents, it can be argued, generally provide for multiple options on what can be sung at specific moments, who can/should sing them, etc. We know that some of these canons have heirachical priorities as well.I’ve supposed, as have many others, that a simple rationale is that all celebrants’ singing faculties aren’t equal in quality or tessituras, and so in deference to that reality, we will just legislate that their intonations of the EP shall remain unaccompanied through the preface to the Sanctus, and either a pitch or an introduction will establish the tonality of the corporate singing, and so forth.If someone knows that this prescription or prohibition has its origins in a tradition, I’d like to know of it.

Barring that, what of those priests who can intone on key, whether they’re singing in Dorian from the Sacramentary that can be tonally linked directly to the Sanctus, or an EP preface set anew by a composer that whose musical elements are congruant throughout the whole ordinary?I’ve always read the prohibition of such accompaniment as a matter of fact, not subject to interpretation. But in my musical heart, I don’t get the “why” of that? Sure, a musically gifted celebrant can find or be provided a pitch, then chant unaccompanied and maintain the modality/tonality that leads to the next ordinary movement; but if accompaniment adds to Mahrt’s “paradigm of beauty,” why banish it?And, IMO, a celebrant singing with competent accompaniment (austere, minimal) would also lessen the notion of clericalism, in that there is a real collaboration between him, the accompanist(s) and eventually the choir and congregation.

Regarding your (Gavin's) contention that original composed settings of the preface and the EP’s relegate the celebrant to the role of a secular performer, I think that somewhat depends upon whether there is an appropriate (sacred or liturgical) melodic/harmonic/rhythmic construct that is self-evident in the setting. When you mentioned the celebrant as secular performer, my mind didn’t reference that to, say, the canon in MoC or MoL, but to Leonard Bernstein’s MASS. That _would_ be bad. That, as a first and foremost artistic work, must call forth attention unto itself.For myself, I prefer the celebrant to use the Sacramentary chants. I just also think they can be easily, modestly and yet beautifully accompanied as well. YMMV.

Monday, April 07, 2008

Consolation to all Tarheels and Bruins:I think calling the Memphis and Kansas guards, "guards," is patently false advertising.They're wraiths who swoosh around the tall forests of Hansborough and Love at velocities closeto the speed of light.

Not that this has anything to do with this post.

I'm just gonna play tag with Dear Lyn F., whose newest "Is it live, or Meme-ix" she found time to type this morning!

My username is YERTLE because of reasons I shall discuss in a public forum no way, no how!

Suffice it to say that when the going gets tough, I'm not above retreating my beak into my shell.

My name is Charles because my mother wore the pants in my family, and that's her dad's name.

My middle name is my other grandfather's Christian name; well, not chronologically Christian in origin. My paternal grandfather, according to my cousins, did possess the fearlessness to enter into the lions' den, if necessary. Patron Saint? Who else? Gregory the Great.

My journal is titled MUSICA DEI DONUM OPTIMI because it is. Well, maybe next to the concept of "woman." Thank you, God!

My friends page is called THE ORGANIC CHEMIST because she only uses the freshest ingredients when brewing up some obtuse compound by which she'll one day cure cancer!

My default userpic is a formal, "tux" head shot because it looks better than my current appearence as a goateed, porcine human homage to John Lennon, round specs an' all.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Who Sez April Fools’ Day’s Lost its Mystique?

The following appeared in a combox on Todd Flowerday’s CATHOLIC SENSIBLILITY and spread like ragweed spores in my hometown all over the WorldWideInterLink. I gotta admit, at first blush (which I should have known was Sutter Home Zinfandel, or something pink from a box,) that its authorship was genuine. So, ever so cautious and discreet, I entered the fray with the response below the original “Haugen” post.

Marty Haugen Says: 1 April 2008 For twenty plus years I have been told, mainly anonymously through the internet, how I have been personally responsible for destroying Roman Catholic worship. I have never responded; however, I wish to offer a few comments now.First of all, although I am not Roman Catholic, I have a deep love and respect for and faith in the worship tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. My own hesitancy about joining the Church is not about its eucharistic theology, but rather around the unwillingness of the Church to commission, ordain and welcome all humans as Jesus did–male and female, married and unmarried, saints and sinners. I believe that the Church, God’s people and all of creation have suffered from this omission.I do not think of my own music as central or important to Roman Catholic worship, present or future. I began writing as a parish musician; I still keep the vision that to be “catholic” is to learn and love and embrace the best of the past tradition and to welcome the “best” of what is new, as Gods speaks through all cultures and expressions (see “Lumen Gentia”). I leave it to communities and to the Holy Spirit that will (more than us, thank God) guide the future choices that will last.I had nothing to do with the choice of “Mass of Creation” for a Papal Mass. Having said that, I believe that attacks upon Tom Stehle in his efforts to engage a congregation with what he hoped would be familiar and meaningful to them (using parts of the liturgy with currently approved texts) were unfair, un-Christian and beneath those of us who truly care about how God speaks through our Sacraments.Marty Haugen

Charles in CenCA Says:

1 April 2008 Would that Mr. Haugen had been content to let his music speak on behalf of his personal ecclesial philosophy. To whit, I have defended the merit of texts such as “All Are Welcome” against all sorts of charges such as heterodoxy, etc. Like another poster, the de facto reality that MoC is the apparent, pre-eminent default Ordinary setting, hasn’t compelled me to use it on Sundays as well. When I happen upon pieces authored/composed by Mr. Haugen, I give them a just look through and audition just as I do whether it originated from the pen of Lassus, Lambilotte or Lauridsen- each judged upon its own intrinsic merit as I deem that to be.However, all that said, for Mr. Haugen to formally state his personal convictions that the institution (The Church Christ founded) that he has purposefully benefited financially from throughout his career, starting even as a “parish musician,” is essentially at odds and in error with Jesus Christ’s commission (as Mr. Haugen sees it) as regards Holy Orders, seems intellectually dishonest at the least, hypocritcal at the worst. Does he not receive royalties every time a publisher reprints “All Are Welcome” in their hymnal or a recording of it is sold or played on a commercial broadcast? But yet, he does not believe, in fact, that “all are welcome” in the Roman Catholic Church? Hello?Wow, two great quotes in one newsday cycle: Barack Obama wouldn’t want to see his two daughters “punished” by giving birth even though he taught them the merits of abstinence. And “I do not think of my own music as central or important to Roman Catholic worship, present or future.” Then why is Mr. Haugen also on the stump at every NPM or Pax Christi convention replete with product line? Who do they think are buying their hope, promises and product? People who are steadfast in their convictions to their God and their Church? Or those subject to cultic and populist nature of consumerism at its most marketable?Thank you, Mr. Haugen. Now I have to measure my own convictions about whether to program “All Are Welcome” ever in the future again. And if you think that’s a good thing, we’re definitely not on the same page.

Well, it was fun while it lasted. All of the following tumbleweeds were my various interactions among the greater RC BlogNebulae. Things occasionally got very Crabby-Nebulae (nod to Todd’s other avocation.)

Dear Todd 2,I really did not regard my observation of a cognitive dissonance (if only in my mind) as a “cheap shot.”I was not amused when some of our colleagues fabricated their ersatz “Moratorium” group on H/H music. I found that extremely uncharitable and have said so on forums elsewhere consistently.I do grant that in another forum I have responded to another composer’s public polemics with what could be termed clearly “ad hominem” characterizations; but this issue clearly challenged my sense of what ethics and integrity come into play in the high stakes marketplace of “new Catholic music.”Hope this clears it up for you. If you feel I’m being morally inconsistent, I apologize.

From my confriere at RIPnet, Anne:

>> Chuck, Chuck, Chucky!! Was it really necessary to say all that? Do you think that these comments, in any way make the RC faith inviting? There are many of us born and raised Roman Catholic who believe the Church suffers because of the valid points he spoke about. VII asked us to reach out in charity in order to overcome whatever it is that divides us. Mr Haugen has inspired many Christians over the years to sing, worship and pray over the years. For this we should be grateful even if his style is not our preference. I truly don’t care how much money he is making. That’s not my concern. My concern is that we should be servants to one another to bring about the Kingdom.Actually, this whole discussion (I broke my promise to myself and jumped in)has only given me a better appreciation for the works and the person of Marty Haugen.<<

My response:

“My dear sweet Anne,I wish I could say I enjoy being dubbed “Chuck,” but I’m actually “Charlie” to those who know and love me (perhaps few and far between ;-)But “Chucky?” Anne, I’m way to old, fat and bleary-eyed to be associated (by insinuation or innocence) with a malevolent, murderous doll!Now to the point- what it necessary? If the post was written by Mr. Haugen, yes, I felt it necessary. It’s not about “how much money.” It’s not really about “money” per se at all.It’s about the wisdom of biting a hand that feeds you. I don’t question Mr. Haugen’s morality and you darn well know I give his work the scrutiny and respect that I provide all pieces that I’m charged with employing at public worship.If the post was proffered by a Tokyo Rose, then I fully apologize to Mr. Haugen in this public forum.

Todd (of Catholic Sensibility) then respectfully offered:

“The Catholic Church as an institution does not hire musicians, and it doesn’t utilize the music they compose. Pastors, staff members, and parishioners make these choices. And in any case, their understanding of ecclesiology need not be perfect or orthodox in any sense for them to pay a musician, either by salary or royalties, who may or may not be completely orthodox. If the morality of a composer were any sort of determining factor in using that person’s music, are church musicians prepared to study biography in detail? Or are we being a tad hypocritical?I suppose a principle strongly held might cause a person to brush up against cooperation with what they perceive as evil, wrong, misperceived, or less than a good thing. I’d suppose that abortion opponents might choose to practice tax resistance rather than cooperate with a society dedicated to the destruction of the unborn. More often, a convenient choice is made: to attempt to punish those who do not believe with full congruence.I remain unconvinced of the philosophy of “love it or leave it,” or as the neo-orthodox would rephrase: obey or get out. It struck me as rather dumb when applied to Vietnam War protesters in the 70’s. It seems more an exercise in anger today than an exercise in logic. (Please note: I never insinuated nor portrayed such a maxim.)As a lay person in the employ of Catholic parishes for the past twenty years, I identify far, far more with the people I serve than with the institution. My retirement portfolio is laughable. The institution contributed zero to the cost of my schooling. I think the pope, curia, bishops, and clergy make catastrophic errors in judgment almost daily. If they asked me, I’d get specific. Parishioners have confirmed my call from God, and they make serving as a liturgist fruitful, worthwhile, and a blessed opportunity.Yet why don’t I feel I’m a hypocrite?Because I work for the people. I don’t serve my “superiors.” My pastor can hire and fire as he wishes, giving two week’s notice or two week’s pay. The institutional Church owes me nothing and the same’s true in the opposite direction.Marty Haugen says he differs with the institutional Church. And I say, “So what?” People are free to buy, use, sing, play, ignore, burn, or criticize his music. What I often detect from his critics is an immature sense of envy. “My compositions are better. Why aren’t I published? Why isn’t my music sing for the pope, played in parishes, or the subject of adoring fans?”My only answer for envy is that no matter how good you are or that you think you are, nobody owes you a darn thing. Tough news, but somebody has to break it.Or if you want to get Biblical, why do the wicked thrive and the just suffer? If you really want the answer, turn the clock back a few weeks.”

Response to Todd’s point:

Charles in CenCA Says:

2 April 2008

Dear Todd,I thank you for a reasoned response to my post. I cannot reflect and reply now as I’ve got to get ready for a very long day at the school, then staff meeting, then schola rehearsal.I trust that you understand that what I had to say was not couched in terms that would be deemed “bile.” I took great pains to articulate that I had no prejudice regarding Marty Haugen’s actual music catalogue.To be continued in charity and respect…Then the suggestions of an April Fools’ Con had me shaking my head: “You are such a doofus.”

You know, Todd, now that a have a little down time before the next wave, I think it best to refrain from furthering the discussion between your points of contention and mine. It occurs to me that all of this based upon whether the original post from “Marty Haugen” was genuinely authored by him.I believe the discussion can continue on general principles that we’ve both shared and do not agree upon; but if my comments had their origin via a falsehood, then furthering this debate does Mr. Haugen an injustice. I hope you understand my concern.”

About this time, on The Cafeteria is Closed, Gerald had weighed in with his definitive “Marty Haugen Strikes Back” masthead. A respected poster, Ma Beck, had unfortunately confused the authorship of both Haugen’s “Gather us in” and Joncas’ “On Eagles’ Wings” which I felt compelled to set the record straight:

“ Ma Beck,I was present at the NPM National (1979, Chicago) premiere of OEW, sung by its composer, Michael Joncas (seminarian at the time, I believe) accompanying himself on the guitar with no other supporting instruments. Schutte was there as a member of the SLJ, because this performance was the NALR showcase presentation, for which I was the bass player for all NALR presenters. I was sitting right next to Joncas as he debuted the tune. Whatever y'all think of it now, it was an singularly stunning performance.Just to get the facts straight.”

If you want to check out a younger, skinnier me with the SLJ at their performance, go to:

“A stunning performance it may have been, but a Mass is NOT a performance.” Ma Beck concurred.

Being in an altered state (caused by my being in a "Groundhog Day" loop, pychologically) I rashly replied:

“Ma Beck and Boots,First of all, it wasn't Mass at Chicago. So, get yer contexts straight, unless you're so prejudiced that "It don't matter to me."Secondly, on a more deeper level, try to stay with me here, Mass is not a performance? Get real. If it's not a performance, to y'all who regard yerselves as thoroughbreds: then why doth the Blogosphere cup runneth over with glam shots of every canopy, fiddleback, candle arrangements, and the oh-so-austere ministerial entourages that have all their "blocking" down pat before having their own Gerald's "do the money shots?"Give me a break. And, yes, it was a lovely performance. And Joncas could likely advance an argument for or against whatever the h*ll position you think you're so knowledgeable about in a nano-second. Because he's in the vineyard, not a poseur. He's done the heavy lifting in Rome.Not even amateurs. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.”

My now confriere, Ma Beck, had the temerity to challenge my insolence:

“Maybe you misunderstood me, Captain Run-on-Sentence.I AGREE that you were at a performance. You just got done saying that.I am GLAD it wasn't a Mass.I am HAPPY you had fun.I THOUGHT I made that clear.Now where in the hell do you get off acting like you know anything about me, and being so hostile?(Re: your equating Gregorian Chant, beautiful vestments, etc., with "performance", I can't help you there. Start with "Spirit of the Liturgy.")

But, then, the grace that is and typifies Christianity spread the fog and fury of the rhetoric: Ma Beck invited me to discuss this off-line, which I appreciated and did. And, as should be expected among followers of Jesus of Nazareth, we both “got it.”Back at the bunkhouse of the ranch, CATHOIC SENSIBILITY, April Fools’ got my full attention, and I wrote:

“You know, Todd, now that a have a little down time before the next wave, I think it best to refrain from furthering the discussion between your points of contention and mine. It occurs to me that all of this based upon whether the original post from “Marty Haugen” was genuinely authored by him.I believe the discussion can continue on general principles that we’ve both shared and do not agree upon; but if my comments had their origin via a falsehood, then furthering this debate does Mr. Haugen an injustice. I hope you understand my concern.”

As an addendum to my own moratorium, which has nothing in common with the insidious philosophy of the erzatz Moratorium on H/H to which many of my friends and peers have zealously attached their names, I clarified, as well as apologized, the tone of my post to Ma Beck and Boots in “Cafeteria.” Those exchanges shall remain in confidence as they were respectfully invited by Ma Beck, to which I respectfully responded, and to which we affirmed a consensus of opinion. (And I so admire her for her temerity as well as her recognizing the providence of her family’s membership in the roles of St. John Cantius in Chicagoland.

Ma Beck had no need for the following, but she posted it in “Cafeteria”:

“ Everyone:I am *SO* sorry for my rude comments to Charles earlier. Thankfully, he is kind and charitable and did indeed e-mail me. I had not understood his meaning but his e-mail made perfect sense.I very much appreciate his kindness in forgiving me for my behavior.I have no idea what got into me - I am NOT like that!Sorry again for any offense I caused.”

Then the ubiquitous “Anon” chimed in: “ Ma Beck, you should know that you hit a soft spot with your logorrheic antagonist.Ad hominem attacks may be made against anybody but Fr Joncas.”

Hmmmmmmmm. The Joncas thing gave away to me a prejudiced opinion from more than a decade ago that I was a blind Michael Joncas apologist. And I found that amusing that someone could carry that mischaracterization for such a long time:

“ Dear Anon,Without looking it up, and with a nod of gratitude to my latest patron saint, Wm.F., I may indeed be dubbed "logorrheic." (I've been hoping for some sort of diagnosis for years now, thank you.) But let it be known throughout the land that I am not, nor intended to be, Ma Beck's antagonist.And you just, just, just might be surprised at how little of Fr. Joncas' actual repertoire I actually program over the course of years! But if you want to imply that I'm a sycophant of Fr. Joncas, I could do worse. From the film of "M.A.S.H."- I don't know your face, stranger, but yer voice is fermilier." Cheers, Anon.And Ma Beck, I'll welcome anything you have to say to me 8 days a week.”

So, once again, as I stated on “Cafeteria” and, I think, CMAA and RPInet, if this was a hoax to being with, and I responded (not alone) to the bait, mea maxima culpa and may it cease and desist as to do otherwise is not Christian charity towards Marty Haugen.In truth, I hope it was a hoax. In truth, I hope the crux of the imposter’s rationale that the Catholic Church is inherently “unwelcoming” is anathema.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Brian's New MemeWhat was I doing 10 years ago?*Teaching high school choral music full time; leading music ministry half-time at my current parish. Composing music. Completing my last effort at staying physically fit which ultimately failed due to taking my first cruise ship vacation! Five things on my "to-do" list today*Teach 8th grade Bell Choir/7th grade Choir/ four other grades music classes.*Prepare/score study music for schola rehearsal: Vivaldi’s CUM SANCTO SPIRITU; Victoria VENI CREATOR SPIRITUS; Tallis O LORD, GIVE THY HOLY SPIRIT.*Compose “Music/Liturgy Report” for monthly staff meeting held at 4pm.*Finalize repertoire choices for 3 Easter.*Watch one of the blondes get booted from American Idol, and hopefully a new episode of Criminal Minds.Snacks I enjoy*Bruschetta with either jalapeno jack cheese, or even margarine.*Triscuits*Salted mixed nuts or mixed nut/fruit trail mixThings I would do if I were a billionaire*Found a conservatory and elementary/secondary church school for liturgy and sacred music education, with scholarships and satellite campuses nationwide.*Buy my wife all the clothes she ever wants for putting up with my fat *ss.Three of my bad habits*Quick temper*I interrupt people when they’re talking*Failure to eliminate the use of Anglo Saxon expletives from daily vocabulary.Five places I have lived*Visalia, California (native, and back here for good)*Oakland, California (adopted hometown, love it, miss it.)*Concord, California*Rodeo, California*Richmond, CaliforniaFive jobs I've had*Library clerk*Shipping and Receiving*Sporting Goods/Automotive Parts Retail Manager*Teacher at all levels, primary to collegiate*Professional Church Musician/ComposerNow, if you've read this, you're supposed to tag five other people to post their responses in public.Cheers,Charles

COLLOQUIUM 2013

Faure's REQUIEM

Thank you, Monsignor Wadsworth

Let's meet at

About Me

Charles Culbreth, parish music director, has been involved in Roman Catholic music ministry professionally since 1970. He and his wife Wendy have served the communities of the newly formed Catholic Church of Visalia (St. Mary's, Holy Family, St. Thomas parishes) since 1991. Prior to that he served as DM at the Cathedral of Sts. John the Baptist and Divine in Fresno, CA. Charles completed both his Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in the California State University system, his masters degree in Choral Music Conducting and Church Music. He retired as choral instructor at Redwood High School in Visalia and accepted the post of Director of Music and Liturgy at St. Mary's. Charles was a member of the National Association of Pastoral Musicians from 1979 to 2001 and a member and officer of the regional division of the American Choral Directors Association.
He joined the Church Music Association in 2007.
Charles received recognition from his beloved Holy Father Benedict XVI, the Benemerenti Award in May of 2011.